Slashdot Mirror


Russian Cargo Mission To ISS Spinning Out of Control

quippe writes: Many sources report that a Russian spacecraft, launched successfully (video) from Russia's Baikonur cosmodrome in Kazakhstan earlier Tuesday, is in big trouble now after having a glitch shortly after liftoff. There is a video on YouTube (credit: NASA) of the space ship spinning out of control. Recovery attempts haven't gone well so far, but they will continue. If they can't regain control, the ship will likely burn up when it falls back into the atmosphere. Current speculation points to greater-than-expected lift by the third-stage, because the apogee is 20km higher than planned. The ship does not seem to pose a threat to the ISS at the moment.

120 comments

  1. I wonder... by wbr1 · · Score: 4, Funny

    Did someone on the ISS order scrambled eggs on the supply boat?

    --
    Silence is a state of mime.
    1. Re:I wonder... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

      No, it was just a failing iPad App.

  2. Sounds like a job for... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Valentina Kerman!

  3. Not to worry by CrimsonAvenger · · Score: 1

    There'll be a Dragon along with supplies in six weeks or so.

    --

    "I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
    1. Re:Not to worry by rmdingler · · Score: 1
      Nothing to see here... move along now.

      Now.

      Imagine Dragon the difference if it wasn't a robotic mission.

      --
      Happiness in intelligent people is the rarest thing I know.

      Ernest Hemingway

    2. Re: Not to worry by WindBourne · · Score: 1

      I wonder if spacex can provide an extra cargo launch in next 6 months? If so, NASA might be willing to buy it.

      --
      I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
    3. Re:Not to worry by Megane · · Score: 1

      Actually, when I saw "Space station supply ship misses orbit" on Drudge yesterday, my first thought was of the launch SpaceX had done the day before. Then I remembered that SpaceX launched a geosat, and I smiled.

      --
      #naabhaprzrag, #sverubfr-000, #agi-fcbafberq, negvpyr[pynff*=' negvpyr-ary-'] { qvfcynl: abar !vzcbegnag; }
    4. Re:Not to worry by Coren22 · · Score: 1

      Jeb could correct the spin. That Kerbal is a master of space flight.

      --
      APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
  4. probably not a glitch by nimbius · · Score: 4, Funny

    NASA ISS Team: Due to budget cuts we're having the janitor request more supplies from Russia this year for the ISS. And remember, use both sides of the toilet paper.
    FKA Scientist We've got the request from NASA....
    FKA Director Whats it say?
    FKA Scientist: "Kindly Spin the cargo baskets, it is to launch when inside to space, of the 20 long lengths for happy triple mode, and iside the burn of the roundness. Glory."
    FKA Director: Can we....can we even do that?
    FKA Scientist:Sir maybe their translator isnt very knowledgeable?
    FKA Director: Nyet Sergei, this is America we're talking about. Two government shutdowns, riots every week and two failed wars...Its entirely possible this is exactly what they want...Just look at Florida.

    --
    Good people go to bed earlier.
    1. Re:probably not a glitch by peragrin · · Score: 1

      Stargata episode 200. It is round it has to spin. Spinning is so much cooler than not spinning.

      --
      i thought once I was found, but it was only a dream.
  5. Will Putin personally fly out by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

    and fix the ship with a big wrench?

  6. No news about where it should fall off? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    No news about where it should fall off? Even if it's burned to ash, some debris will remains... where it should fall off?

    1. Re:No news about where it should fall off? by NotDrWho · · Score: 1

      Somewhere is the ocean probably. Happy?

      --
      SJW's don't eliminate discrimination. They just expropriate it for themselves.
    2. Re:No news about where it should fall off? by Immerman · · Score: 2

      How could you possibly know this early? If it hasn't already fallen then it's in orbit, which means atmospheric drag is what will eventually bring it down. And atmospheric drag, especially on a tumbling structure at that altitude, and on a presumably elliptical orbit, is extremely chaotic. Add in the 11+km/s of orbital velocity and you'd have to somehow estimate its final reentry time within a few minutes to even guess which continent or ocean it will be over.

      --
      --- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
    3. Re:No news about where it should fall off? by MoaDweeb · · Score: 1

      How could you possibly know this early?

      Because the earth is ~70% water by surface area? Chances are it will hit the briny.

      --
      New Zealanders are well balanced with a chip on each shoulder. One represents Australia, the other the rest of the world
    4. Re:No news about where it should fall off? by Immerman · · Score: 1

      Great. Where? I'll do you one better - there's a 100% chance it will hit the Earth. Only very slightly less useful information.

      And actually, without knowing the orbit we can't even state that 70% probability: 70% of the total surface area doesn't translate to 70% of the surface under it's flightpath. I can draw plenty of great circles that traverse far less than 70% water. And a fair number of those those pass over Russia...

      --
      --- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
  7. Calm down with the "threats" by Ashenkase · · Score: 3, Informative

    The ship does not seem to pose a threat to the ISS at the moment.

    The resupply ship is not even remotely in the same orbit as the ISS. Progress 59 will never pose a threat to the ISS unless they regain control, adjust the orbit 200km higher, rendezvous with the ISS and attempt a docking.

    1. Re:Calm down with the "threats" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Dr. Mann, do not attempt docking, I repeat, do not attempt docking!

    2. Re:Calm down with the "threats" by captnjohnny1618 · · Score: 1

      Although a couple of docking procedures could help with international relations...

      http://threewordphrase.com/mis... NSFW (although not really that bad... just weird...)

    3. Re:Calm down with the "threats" by rmdingler · · Score: 1
      Well played coward...

      Da. Mann.

      --
      Happiness in intelligent people is the rarest thing I know.

      Ernest Hemingway

  8. Solution... by msauve · · Score: 5, Funny

    They need to get some politicians involved. They're good at spin control.

    --
    "National Security is the chief cause of national insecurity." - Celine's First Law
    1. Re:Solution... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They need to get some politicians involved. They're good at spin control.

      Won't they just add more spin?

    2. Re: Solution... by WindBourne · · Score: 1

      Opposite direction.

      --
      I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
  9. Re: get it out the way by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Funny

    In soviet Russia Kerala space program plays you

  10. Re:Yesterday's News by OzPeter · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Dear Dice, please let us know when you have something that wasn't reported in the major news outlets a day ago.

    If you are coming here for cutting edge news, then you are in the wrong place.

    The only reason I come back here is for the discussions about the stories. While I typically seen the major news pieces in other locations (and with more in-depth reporting than will ever be on /.) I haven't seen a site that comes close(*) to the /. comments section for it's structure, moderation and (gasp) insightful comments.

    Many times I let the comments brew for a few hours and then read the ones that have risen to the top of the moderation system. That can give me a lot more insight into the background of a story than anywhere else.

    * Yes I look at Soylent News every so often, but there is a tenth of the commenting there than there is here.

    --
    I am Slashdot. Are you Slashdot as well?
  11. In Soviet Russia Cargo Boxes Open You! by xxxJonBoyxxx · · Score: 1, Funny

    In Soviet Russia Cargo Boxes Open You!

    You're right - I do feel better.

  12. Is Bill Kerman flying it ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Perhaps they forgot to put enough monopropelant tanks on :)

  13. Partners in space by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Our dear partners in space. They are a bad actor on earth and increasingly unreliable in space. So why are we working with them?

    1. Re:Partners in space by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

      At least they can still get a man into orbit. Puts them way ahead of the U.S. And their safety record is a shitload lot better than NASA's.

    2. Re:Partners in space by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I won't defend Obama's decisions to cancel Project Constellation and end the shuttle program at the same time. It has created a dark age in US manned spaceflight. IF we had followed Bush's plan in 2004, ISS would be abandoned and the US would have a base on the moon. Nonetheless, If I were next up for a ride on a Soyuz, I'd be concerned.

    3. Re:Partners in space by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If I were next up for a ride on a Soyuz, I'd be concerned.

      Why? The Soyuz has had a spotless safety record for decades. The Russians haven't lost a cosmonaut since 1971 and Soyuz is a well-proven workhorse. Put me in one of those *any day* over the notoriously unstable Space Shuttle or Elon Musk's latest school science project.

    4. Re:Partners in space by thrich81 · · Score: 1

      Constellation basically cancelled itself by going way over budget with almost nothing to show for it except a useless suborbital launch of a glorified Space Shuttle solid rocket booster and no hope of ever maintaining a semblance of a budget going forward. And Obama didn't end the shuttle program -- he just executed the end of the shuttle program as scheduled and planned by the Bush administration and Congress before he took office.

    5. Re:Partners in space by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Did you even peruse the GAO's report on Constellation? It was insanely over budget, I think they were in the realms of $140 BILLION just for the first couple flights and over $230 billion to achieve even some of the goals of the program (Moon trip, prepare for Mars shot, etc). After over $12 billion dollars spent the only thing they could do to show some progress was to hobble together some old flight hardware and a dummy stage for a "demonstration flight" that had several major issues (pad damage, parachute failures, etc) at the cost of over $400 million. SLS is still over budget but not by nearly as much, I think they're projected to run to $40 Billion for R&D, construction and the first 3 launches.

    6. Re: Partners in space by WindBourne · · Score: 1

      Lol.
      O did NOT cancel the shuttle. You neo-cons did. In addition, ares 1 was not going to be ready until 2017-2018. And Ares v would fly around 2030, no earlier.
      It is fools like you that continue to kill NASA.

      --
      I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
    7. Re: Partners in space by WindBourne · · Score: 1

      Uh, not even close. When it comes to launches, NASA is way ahead of USSR/Russia.

      --
      I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
    8. Re:Partners in space by Megane · · Score: 1

      OH BOY! A BASE ON THE MOON! Yeah, sure, maybe it would have happened by 2029 at the rate NASA works these days, have you seen how the Senate Launch System keeps missing its milestones? And what exact value is a base on the moon? A lot of scratchy moon dust to give everybody silicosis? Helium-three (giggle) for (hahaha) fusion power (giggle *SNORT*)?

      An orbital space station is much more useful because we need to learn to do things in zero-gee (like, say for getting to Mars), and the moon ain't gonna do that.

      --
      #naabhaprzrag, #sverubfr-000, #agi-fcbafberq, negvpyr[pynff*=' negvpyr-ary-'] { qvfcynl: abar !vzcbegnag; }
    9. Re:Partners in space by Rei · · Score: 5, Interesting

      If you look at the ratio of serious accidents on the Soyuz compared to the shuttle, it's actually higher. Soyuz has gotten very lucky several times in nearly killing its occupants, and had several complete would-have-been-deadly failures in modern times on unmanned launches.

      Just looking at crewed vehicles, here's some of the more significant Soyuz accidents since 1971:

      18a (1975): second stage separation failed, the craft accelerated toward earth, the crew hit over 21g on abort, rolled down a hill, and stopped just short of a cliff. Serious injuries.

      23 (1976): Landed off target, broke through a frozen lake, and sank to the bottom; with great difficulty, the crew was ultimately rescued in time.

      33 (1979): Engine failure in orbit; the mission had to be aborted but the craft was thankfully low enough to achieve reentry in a reasonable length of time.

      T-10-1 (1983): Rocket engulfed in flames on the launch pad. The emergency escape system was activated just two seconds before the craft exploded.

      Expedition 6 (2003): Malfunction during reentry, causing the craft to reenter too hard and way off target. Landed on its side and left one of the crew with a broken shoulder.

      (2008): Separation failure on reentry, causing incorrect reentry orientation for part of aerobraking and a rough landing; another crew member injured. Russia responded by blaming the problem on a superstition that having more women than men in a spaceship at any given time is unlucky and banning the practice for all future missions, and no, I'm not kidding though I wish I was.

      It's not even accurate to say that the last fatality from a Soyuz was in 1971, in that a Soyuz-U launch in 2002 failed 29 seconds after launch, fell back on its pad and exploded, killing a man on the ground.

      Soyuz's "spotless safety record for decades" is anything but. They've gotten really lucky, many times. And now Russia has made bug cutbacks in their space program due to the current economic climate, yet still wants to pursue grandiose programs like their own space station and even moon base. What do you think the result will be?

      --
      "...but Republicans plan to come back with a new plan, where they just slash the tires on all the ambulances."
    10. Re:Partners in space by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      do things in zero-gee

      So, after 50 years and over $100 billion, when exactly does that investigation end? Von Braun envisioned a Mars transfer spacecraft with a spun section for gravity, not never ending research on the atrophy of bone and muscle in zero G. You're not thinking clearly.

    11. Re:Partners in space by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      becuase the only other alternative you have currently is a trampoline.

    12. Re:Partners in space by Rei · · Score: 1

      And where would one investigate spinning a spacecraft up for artificial gravity? Exactly, in space. Not on the moon.

      Lunar surface science could address some issues not addressable in space but they're really not the interesting ones. Things like manufacture with or refining of regolith can be done here in Earth (or in space if you want reduced or zero gravity) using simulants for far, far cheaper. And working on the moon increases your costs and risks by an order of magnitude. It's just not the answer. Even if you want to work on "space mining" experiments it'd be far cheaper to do so on an asteroid rather than to drop down into the lunar gravity well. And asteroids are a much more interesting mining target anyway.

      --
      "...but Republicans plan to come back with a new plan, where they just slash the tires on all the ambulances."
    13. Re:Partners in space by Luckyo · · Score: 1

      You're really bending over backwards and splitting hairs there, to the point of misrepresenting what the person you answered to is saying.

      He specified "cosmonauts" as in people who ride in the vehicle.

      Fact is that when it comes to getting people to space, Russians are clear number one in the world right now, with no real challenger in sight. That's why even extremely rich space tourists go to them instead of financing development of vehicle of their own like Elon Musk is trying to do right now.

    14. Re:Partners in space by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      At this point there's no point in going to the moon unless you're going to do something there. I'd argue that we should go to the moon and do something there, however, and that is to build a radio telescope array on the far side. Maybe several of 'em. And by "build an array" I just mean "land a number of array elements" which will communicate with one another and build a mesh network. Then we land a number of communications repeater elements to get the signal to where we can use it, etc etc.

      Doing anything else on the moon right now is kind of a waste of time, deep sampling/drilling aside. That might tell us something we don't already know.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    15. Re:Partners in space by Rich0 · · Score: 1

      That's why even extremely rich space tourists go to them instead of financing development of vehicle of their own like Elon Musk is trying to do right now.

      Not really disputing the facts here, but this isn't really an apples-to-apples.

      It is like calling somebody stupid for building their own plane when it is far easier and cheaper to just buy a ticket on an airliner. That would be true if the only goal were to get from point A to point B, but people who build things usually have other goals.

    16. Re: Partners in space by Coren22 · · Score: 1

      Please describe how what he said will kill NASA.

      Also, what about his post makes you think he is a Neo-Con, not just an idiot?

      --
      APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
    17. Re:Partners in space by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      Personally, I think we're far better off abandoning the Senate Launch System and contracting with private companies for launches, companies that aren't required by politics to have contractors and subcontractors all over the country to hit some Senator's state or Congressman's district.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
    18. Re: Partners in space by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah NASA *launched* 14 astronauts just fine. They just had trouble keeping them alive afterwards.

    19. Re:Partners in space by Luckyo · · Score: 1

      The guy who I answered to, if you click on his commentary, is basically here to take a big dump on Russian space tech. He's going all the nine miles of spin doctoring, from conflating casualties among people being launched to people getting hit by debris on the ground to listing accidents and suggesting that this is comparable to accidents with lethal outcome. All while ignoring that in this apples for oranges comparison, he doesn't offer similar list for the other side.

      Which from a point of view of someone who followed the space race and technology for a long time, this is what we've been seeing for a while now. It's the standard "the other side sucks, let's not work together but give money to private sector who can make the innovations instead and then keep them for themselves" speech.

      It's quite possibly the second biggest objective to our progress in space exploration after the general apathy towards it among population.

    20. Re:Partners in space by Luckyo · · Score: 1

      "Objective" was supposed to be "obstacle". It's late evening here. Apologies.

    21. Re: Partners in space by TheCabal · · Score: 1

      Tomatoe, tomahto

    22. Re:Partners in space by Rei · · Score: 1

      The 6 I mentioned (starting at 18a) were manned missions. As in, people riding in the vehicle.

      --
      "...but Republicans plan to come back with a new plan, where they just slash the tires on all the ambulances."
    23. Re:Partners in space by Rich0 · · Score: 1

      Yup. Wasn't really disputing your overall point. I think the Russian designs are praiseworthy for their simplicity/stability. Sometimes their QC fails a bit, but the fact that these haven't resulted in casualties speaks to the robustness of the design. NASA is moving towards simpler designs themselves.

    24. Re:Partners in space by Luckyo · · Score: 1

      You are once again intentionally misunderstanding. As in claiming that "people riding in the vehicle perishing" is the same as "people riding in the vehicle which has a failed launch and kills people outside the vehicle by crashing on top of them".

  14. UNMANNED Russian Spacecraft by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Thankfully, it would appear that the spacecraft is unmanned. Why TFS left out this piece of detail...

    1. Re:UNMANNED Russian Spacecraft by Mysticalfruit · · Score: 1, Insightful

      When you put the word "Cargo" in the title it's pretty self explanatory otherwise you're just a horrible person...

      --
      Yes Francis, the world has gone crazy.
    2. Re:UNMANNED Russian Spacecraft by oodaloop · · Score: 1

      The Millennium Falcon was a cargo ship, and yet I seem to remember there being a crew. Adding that's it's unmanned would not have been redundant and would have been a nice useful detail.

      --
      Tic-Tac-Toe, Global Thermonuclear War, and relationships all have the same winning move.
    3. Re:UNMANNED Russian Spacecraft by fnj · · Score: 1

      Seagoing cargo ships are manned. Cargo planes are manned.

    4. Re:UNMANNED Russian Spacecraft by ColdWetDog · · Score: 1

      Umm, the Millennium Falcon wasn't real. It wasn't a cargo ship. It was a plot device.

      I know the computer graphics were pretty good and all but Leia's hair style should have given it away.

      --
      Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
    5. Re:UNMANNED Russian Spacecraft by R3d+M3rcury · · Score: 1

      And Cargo spacecraft are not--unless you count the Shuttle, which is no longer flying.

    6. Re:UNMANNED Russian Spacecraft by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And we were supposed to just magically know that?

    7. Re:UNMANNED Russian Spacecraft by Coren22 · · Score: 1

      I have seen plenty of women wearing that hair style...

      --
      APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
    8. Re:UNMANNED Russian Spacecraft by R3d+M3rcury · · Score: 1

      Yes. Yes we were.

  15. Saw this on the news by Snotnose · · Score: 1

    They said the problem was 2 of the solar panels didn't deploy.

    1. Re:Saw this on the news by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Since there are only 2, that is a big problem.

    2. Re:Saw this on the news by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

      False. Solar Panels did deploy - that's about the last bit that is certain. Shortly after that there was a problem deploying KURS docking system antennas (not all deployed) and soon after the ship ended up tumbling.

      44 pieces of debris has been detected near Progress and 3rd stage.

      Current guesses include

      - Collision with 3rd stage of the rocket, resulting in debris
      - Explosion in the propulsion system of Progress, resulting in debris

      Seems like Russians have given up (no response to commands over multiple attempts) and it will burn up sometime after May 7th.

    3. Re:Saw this on the news by Rei · · Score: 1

      Collision with the 3rd stage sounds eminently believable. This would be, what, the 4th major 3rd stage separation failure they've had in the past 15 years? Pathetic that they can't get that fixed. It's not like the Soyuz family has been Russia's workhorse for the past half century or anything.

      --
      "...but Republicans plan to come back with a new plan, where they just slash the tires on all the ambulances."
  16. Re:Yesterday's News by rmdingler · · Score: 2
    Absolutely this.

    Yesterdays news with a better takeaway than you'd get from the current news folks.

    Dive in. If nothing else, the other users will make you a better poster, and if you pay attention, a better thinker.

    --
    Happiness in intelligent people is the rarest thing I know.

    Ernest Hemingway

  17. Re: Yesterday's News by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's powered by your submissions, submit a cool story and stop whining.

  18. These are not space ships. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Why do people keep calling this a space ship? It's a single use supply craft with no life support, heat shields, parachute or other means of recovery.

    1. Re: These are not space ships. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Because Space Nutters cannot think rationally, that's why.

    2. Re:These are not space ships. by disposable60 · · Score: 1

      If Voyager, MRO, Gallileo and Rosetta are spaceships, so is this busted pickup truck. .. or is the distinction you wish to draw between spaceSHIPs and spaceCRAFT?

      --
      You're looking for quotes? See my journal.
  19. I's horrible by I+will+be+back · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Dragon won't make it in time to deliver patriotic artifacts for Russian crew to celebrate victory of Russia in the second world war.

    1. Re:I's horrible by Rei · · Score: 5, Funny

      Crimea river.

      --
      "...but Republicans plan to come back with a new plan, where they just slash the tires on all the ambulances."
    2. Re:I's horrible by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Crimea river.

      Now THAT's funny!

    3. Re:I's horrible by sysrammer · · Score: 1

      Nice word-play. A good one-liner when a Russian starts whining. Now I just need to get a good one-liner for when an American starts whining, and I'll be on my way to a full set.

      --
      His ignorance covered the whole earth like a blanket, and there was hardly a hole in it anywhere. - Mark Twain
  20. Blessing went wrong by I+will+be+back · · Score: 1

    As you know, Russian Church blesses spacecrafts. Probably, this time they overdone, so ship flew 20km higher and one side received more blessing than the another, so it lost balance and started spinning.

    1. Re:Blessing went wrong by Tim+the+Gecko · · Score: 1

      There was a great talk on C-SPAN by Bill Ingalls, the NASA photographer. He took a great photo of one of the blessings by an Orthodox priest: https://www.nasa.gov/content/a...

      Video is here

      .

    2. Re:Blessing went wrong by Tim+the+Gecko · · Score: 1
    3. Re:Blessing went wrong by Rei · · Score: 1

      Maybe there were too many women involved in building the craft compared to the number of men; they should ban that too. Or to "prevent sexual tension", perhaps they should just get it over with and ban women from approaching within several kilometers of all facilities at all related to rocketry. Then they'll finally fix Soyuz's reliability problems!

      --
      "...but Republicans plan to come back with a new plan, where they just slash the tires on all the ambulances."
    4. Re:Blessing went wrong by Luckyo · · Score: 1

      It got closer to God?

    5. Re:Blessing went wrong by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As you know, Russian Church blesses spacecrafts.
      Probably, this time they overdone, so ship flew 20km higher and one side received more blessing than the another, so it lost balance and started spinning.

      Hahahaha....best comment here.

  21. Lost contact with the ground by jfdavis668 · · Score: 1

    Well, it's going make contact with the ground, literally.

  22. Re:Yesterday's News by Shakrai · · Score: 1

    That can give me a lot more insight into the background of a story than anywhere else.

    Unless the story is about politics, then the comments (including the +5s) are in the groupthink sewer here the same as they'd be anywhere else. /. is at its best on stories about science, space, and technology. Most of the rest are clickbait.

    --
    I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
    We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
  23. Re:Yesterday's News by OzPeter · · Score: 1

    Unless the story is about politics, then the comments (including the +5s) are in the groupthink sewer here the same as they'd be anywhere else.

    Not sure I totally agree with that.

    From my experience even the groupthink comments still have to back up their arguments with some justification rather than just a "Because I said so" argument. (and anyone who tries to present a "Because I said so" argument is going to be called out pretty quickly.) Thus even if I am not in the groupthink, I am still learning the basis for the groupthink.

    --
    I am Slashdot. Are you Slashdot as well?
  24. Um, planning? by rickb928 · · Score: 1

    "Current speculation points to greater-than-expected lift by the third-stage, because the apogee is 20km higher than planned. The ship does not seem to pose a threat to the ISS at the moment."

    Sounds like a safe-ish orbit if all goes haywire after the third stage is done. Good flight plan.

    Too bad it didn't get on course, but obviously a major malfunction.

    --
    deleting the extra space after periods so i can stay relevant, yeah.
    1. Re:Um, planning? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Gotta love the way they're wording it, "greater-than-expected lift"? With the tracking of debris it sound a lot more like either something exploded (stage or Progress propulsion system) or the stage failed to completely shut down and after separation slammed back into the Progress stage and pushed it for a bit longer before either running out of fuel or the progress toppled off of the stage apparently smacking into its side on the way past. Personally I'm betting on something exploding, while the craft was still roughly intact it sounds like it was pretty severely damaged. I doubt that some some simple extra thrust would do that.

    2. Re:Um, planning? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      it sound a lot more like either something spontaneously disassembled itself...

      Fixed that for you. ;)

  25. I bet the CEO of SpaceX is happy this morning... by Mysticalfruit · · Score: 1

    You just have to imagine that Elon Musk heard this news and did a happy dance. This just sells into his narrative that Russia's launch systems are old, expensive and unreliable.

    --
    Yes Francis, the world has gone crazy.
  26. Re:get it out the way by bondsbw · · Score: 1

    In Soviet Russia (taking into account Mach's Principle) uncontrolled spaceship rotates you!

    --
    All my liberal friends think I'm a conservative, all my conservative friends think I'm a liberal.
  27. Re:Yesterday's News by xmousex · · Score: 1

    Honestly I did not see this particular story anywhere yesterday on any major national feeds and I am not seeing it running much today even though it is an ongoing situation. Everything is buried by baltimore. Who had this covered?

  28. Re:Yesterday's News by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Dear Dice, please let us know when you have something that wasn't reported in the major news outlets a day ago.

    Dear anonymous moron, please stop visiting /news aggregator/ websites and then bitch n moan the site actually *gasp* aggregates news.

    Also please stop putting your hand in water and complaining you are now wet, stop stabbing yourself in the eye and complaining it hurts, and stop using a computer to make posts about your opinion that computers shouldn't exist or be used.

  29. Apologies for posting something on topic by justthinkit · · Score: 4, Insightful

    (1) spinning is caused by force
    (2) more force, unless purely rotational = higher speed
    (3) higher speed = higher orbit
    (4) 20km higher orbit is not much -- consistent with a small engine (like a thruster) causing it
    So, (5) keep guessing what the problem is

    My guess: a thruster stuck open...

    --
    I come here for the love
    1. Re:Apologies for posting something on topic by Luckyo · · Score: 1

      Not a hard guess considering they state in the OP that likely culprit is too much lift provided by third stage.

      You may as well guess that they're going higher than planned.

    2. Re:Apologies for posting something on topic by justthinkit · · Score: 1

      I tried to point out how I think the summary is wrong in suspecting too much lift. That the extra altitude is miniscule. And then there is the matter of the rocket spinning. But yes, other than those 3 differences, I completely agree with the summary I suppose.

      --
      I come here for the love
    3. Re:Apologies for posting something on topic by Luckyo · · Score: 1

      One potential guess is that one of the engines of the third stage burned for too long. Third stage has quite weak engines, and it has a lot of them as it's third stage's job to put the object on correct trajectory.

      If you have those engines that have significant angle of attack vectors on the actual heading for purpose of setting the direction burns for too long, it's quite possible that object will enter a spin in addition to getting punched to a higher orbit.

    4. Re: Apologies for posting something on topic by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Spinning is caused by momentum. If force were involved it would be accelerating its spin.

    5. Re: Apologies for posting something on topic by justthinkit · · Score: 1

      Ok, you pass Physics 100. Now back to the problem at hand.

      If this was a simple case of the capsule being put into a spin, and then all forces on the capsule stopping, it would be trivial to send the capsule a signal to "fire thruster x for y seconds" to stop the spin. I am sure this is done all the time.

      Yet the spin continues...

      The logical conclusion is that something is continuing to impart rotational force to the capsule. Something stuck doing this. With the only somethings that checks all the boxes being navigational thrusters.

      --
      I come here for the love
  30. Re: get it out the way by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What is koala space program, comrade?

  31. Re:Yesterday's News by Anubis+IV · · Score: 1

    Soylent News seems to be worth watching and checking in on occasionally, since it's slowly getting better and better comments (and they have folks actively developing and enhancing the back-end too), but yeah, it's nowhere near the level of commenting we get here.

  32. Re: get it out the way by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    We must to invade Australia, kindly.

  33. Re:Yesterday's News by OzPeter · · Score: 1

    I saw it on Ars before I saw it here. It is also on the front page of CNN

    --
    I am Slashdot. Are you Slashdot as well?
  34. Easy fix by Bovius · · Score: 3, Funny

    That's an easy fix. Just turn on non-physics time warp for a moment and turn it back off. Bam, no more rotation. Easy as pie.

    1. Re:Easy fix by Ksevio · · Score: 1

      Unless (as one person speculated) one of the thrusters is activated and it's spinning out of control powered.

  35. Re:Yesterday's News by Rei · · Score: 1

    For anyone who wants the latest news, Russia has given up on trying to recover it, saying recovery is impossible and it will be left to break up in the atmosphere.

    --
    "...but Republicans plan to come back with a new plan, where they just slash the tires on all the ambulances."
  36. Re:I bet the CEO of SpaceX is happy this morning.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Old? Yes, but in rocket science old = proven. Conservative people like that they are paying for proven tech that works.
    Expensive? No, Soyuz and Progress are damn cheap.
    Unreliable? Well, two failures out of ~150 missions is pretty good reliability for an unmanned cargo vessel.

    Proton failures with booster going full Kerbal were much bigger deal. This is obviously a setback, but nobody can claim that Progress is unreliable based on this alone. Besides, main theory appears to be third stage shutdown problem, resulting in the stage colliding with Progress and damaging it critically.

    This failure does prove that you need redundant supply ships for ISS (and for any long term manned space mission) - a booster or a cargo ship might fail, so you need dissimilar redundancy and suitable buffers of supplies. ISS has these things. Dragon and HTV are still working fine. Granted, if Progress flights get delayed due to accident investigation, Dragon is going to be in bit of a do-or-die mode in June as a failure for that cargo flight would be a fairly big deal. Not "evacuate ISS"-big deal (yet), but "reshuffle all cargo manifests, start conserving supplies"-grade big deal.

  37. Re:I bet the CEO of SpaceX is happy this morning.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    I hope SpaceX is keeping their guard up though, a myriad of US defense contractors, foreign launch companies and government officials probably have prepared statements, budget bills and press campaigns ready and waiting for when SpaceX finally has a failure. If SpaceX can even maintain their current prices/reliability let alone do half of what they are working towards they're on track to shake the space launch industry to its core and a lot of people are very unhappy about it.

  38. Mad Libs anyone? by jpellino · · Score: 2

    Russian _____________ Spinning Out Of Control. OK, easy potshot, but hey - Ukraine, Crimea, poisoned pols, puppet leaders... this well doesn't seem to be running dry anytime soon. For perspective on flying to the ISS a colleague needed to fly some software on a thumb drive to the ISS. Beyond the cargo charge, the Shuttle shakedown of the item involved extensive testing of the sw, the physical device, etc. with the associated cost with a comma in it. The Russian criteria for flying the stuff was a bit more streamlined. It amounted to little more than "did the check clear?" Yes, their flight hardware is very reliable, though actually flying in it beats you up and makes the shuttle seem like a luxury liner.

    --
    "Win treats sysadmins better than users. Mac treats users better than sysadmins. Linux treats everyone like sysadmins."
  39. Stability issues confirmed by ThePyro · · Score: 1

    This has been happening my rockets also. Everything needs to be thoroughly re-tested because of changes to the aerodynamic model in KSP 1.0. I admire the Russians, though, for doing things the Kerbal way; launch first, ask questions later.

  40. Pink Floyd: Animals by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Many times I let the comments brew for a few hours and then read the ones that have risen to the top of the moderation system. That can give me a lot more insight into the background of a story than anywhere else.

    In other words, instead of making up your own mind, you base your opinion on what everyone else thinks, so you're sure to fit in.

    Meek and obedient you follow the leader down well trodden corridors into the valley of steel ~Waters

    Surely you've noticed how biased the mod system; I can prove it to you.

  41. Re:I bet the CEO of SpaceX is happy this morning.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It depends on insurers reaction. Once SpaceX has an incident of its own the insurers may have reason to believe the whole enterprise risk is higher and raise rates.

  42. Re:I bet the CEO of SpaceX is happy this morning.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
  43. ... I do this all the time ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    someone forgot to turn on SAS....

  44. Progress 59 Reentry Bingo by Ashenkase · · Score: 1
  45. Re:I bet the CEO of SpaceX is happy this morning.. by Rei · · Score: 1

    You're kidding, right? Soyuz has had dozens of major failures. Even killed a guy in 2002 when the rocket failed seconds into launch and fell back on the pad. Also, the manned Dragon costs per seat are $25M. For Soyuz it's $75M. Hardly cheaper. Same for cargo comparisons, Soyuz is said to be as little as $6000-7000/kg++, Falcon 9 is $4500/kg, and Falcon Heavy is supposed to come in around $1700/kg.

    ++ - Doubtful in general; looking up actual delivered contracts makes one question whether that's actually that cheap. For example, Soyuz STB launches for the Galileo satellites were contracted at $114m per launch. That rocket has a max capacity of 7800kg to LEO. That comes out as a whopping $14,600/kg.

    --
    "...but Republicans plan to come back with a new plan, where they just slash the tires on all the ambulances."
  46. Alternative by CanadianMacFan · · Score: 1

    Should they start rolling out the trampoline?

  47. Re:I bet the CEO of SpaceX is happy this morning.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Price and cost are two different things

  48. Damnit, Jebediah! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    First stage, then ignite

    1. Re:Damnit, Jebediah! by Coren22 · · Score: 1

      I would expect in this case it is more of

      Dammit Jeb, you're supposed to shut off the engines before staging!

      --
      APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
  49. Re:I bet the CEO of SpaceX is happy this morning.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'm by no means an expert on space launch industry insurance but I would imagine that SpaceX's insurance rates started out rather high, as they didn't have a vehicle with a launch history or at least a history of working in the launch industry. With each successful launch I would guess that their rates go down, a failure may cause them to level out or increase slightly but its probably nothing compared to where they likely started out.